Gavin Schmidt, the climate modeler at NASA and Columbia University who has long endured the slings and arrows that come with blogging on climate, has now gained a laurel for his efforts — the inaugural $25,000 Climate Communications Prize of the American Geophysical Union.

The data says that Schmitt and Happer are correct. In books and on the web, carbon dioxide is far more discussed (and maligned) than the other chemicals he lists.

On the web as news headlines, CO2 is still the overall leader, as indicated by the bar graph but has recently waned. Parabens seems to be the new bogeyman with the press as they seem to care less and less about CO2:

The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.

By HARRISON H. SCHMITT AND WILLIAM HAPPER

WSJ.COM 5/8/13: Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses. –IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4

Does “global warming” cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, “Will climate change influence tornado occurrence?” The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, “Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales–such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms–cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence.” This is because tornadoes are short-fused weather, on the time scale of seconds and minutes, and a space scale of fractions of a mile across. In contrast, climate trends take many years, decades, or millennia, spanning vast areas of the globe. The numerous unknowns dwell in the vast gap between those time and space scales. Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. They can indicate broad-scale shifts in three of the four favorable ingredients for severe thunderstorms (moisture, instability and wind shear), but as any severe weather forecaster can attest, having some favorable factors in place doesn’t guarantee tornadoes. Our physical understanding indicates mixed signals–some ingredients may increase (instability), while others may decrease (shear), in a warmer world. The other key ingredient (storm-scale lift), and to varying extents moisture, instability and shear, depend mostly on day-to-day patterns, and often, even minute-to-minute local weather. Finally, tornado recordkeeping itself also has been prone to many errors and uncertainties, doesn’t exist for most of the world, and even in the U. S., only covers several decades in detailed form.

But hey, who needs data when you can spew raw religious emotion on Twitter?

The last time Gleick got this worked up about a WSJ op-ed unfavorable to his views, he committed a crime. Heads up everybody!

Note that the claims of Happer and Schmitt are not new, but have been put many times before in various ways. The reason that Gleick and Schmidt are in such a tizzy is because that these oft-spoken facts have been published in the WSJ. These climate alarmists are used to having it all their way in prestige publications. To their anguish, this is no longer true. Their cause is waning and climate alarmism has just about run its course.

With the climate rackets drying up, Gleick will do anything to get some press. However, in his defense, job opportunities may be limited for a liar and a thief in the real world. His current employment by the useless idiots of the climate cult may be his only option.

“Hello, Gavin? I have your good friend Bill McKibben on the line. Something about CO2, the end of life as we know it, climate science, Exxon-Mobil, Koch Brothers, and the Keystone pipeline…can you take the call? And I also have your former boss Jim Hansen on line two. Something about tipping points, “game over for the climate”, flat earthers and neanderthals… “

Using the google charts is pointless for many reasons. Popularity of a term has little to do with it’s reputation. Type water in with the other terms, and you will find that it is listed twice as often as carbon dioxide. Does this mean that water has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide?

Also, carbon dioxide’s popularity has been higher then all the other compounds since the mid-1870’s. So assuming popularity is an indicator of reputation, carbon dioxide’s poor reputation precedes modern climate science by many years, and has actually been decreasing since 1940.

These charts don’t support the claims you are making whatsoever.

Furthermore, I disagree with your point for less scientific reasons. Agent Orange I would assume has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. I believe if you surveyed people on the listed compounds, nearly 100% would say Agent Orange is “bad”. I’m not sure how many would say the same about carbon dioxide, but I doubt it would be even close the the same as any of the other compounds.

I believe this issue boils down to semantics. “Popularity” and “reputation” are being confused and/or interpreted differently.

I also have a minor issue with your extreme weather claim. I believe it is a strawman. Gleick says the statement “There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather” is false. You are essentially arguing against the statement “More carbon dioxide has caused extreme weather” There is a difference between saying there is slight evidence for causation and saying that there is probable causation.

I have only met and spoken with one Apollo astronaut in my life. That man was Harrison Schmitt. This was before the global warming hoax. We spoke very briefly about joint design for gas pressurised suits. He knew what he was talking about, he spoke from experience. I was impressed, a geologist by training with an deep understanding of other scientific fields.

Gavin’s reputation depends on pseudo science. Harrison Schmitt is putting his deserved reputation on the line to defend real science. Gavin is not saving the planet, Harrison however is fighting to save science. Gavin is a waste of skin and he is breathing other peoples air.

Here’s a link to the excellent article about the benefits of CO2 in today’s WSJ, co-authored by Harrison Schmitt, ex Apollo austranaut, also former U.S Senator, and William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton, also ex-director of energy research at the U.S. DOE:

We can go back to “Earth in the Balance” where all Gore called the internal combustion engine – because of the GHGs it gives off (particularly CO2) – “the greatest threat to mankind.” Not DDT, parabens, sulfuric acid, etc. While I don’t want to be doused in sulfuric acid, is anyone out there losing sleep over it? How often are parabens discussed in the news, during political races, etc? Does the UN have a committee designated to fight parabens?

I really hate to admit this but Gavin Schmidt, Peter Gleick, and I have a little in common.

You see, a while back I was hospitalized, and I had to go for the obligatory chest X-ray. As the nurse was pushing my hospital wheelchair to the room for this X-ray of my chest I joked to her, “They wanna make Arnold Schwarzenegger jealous.”

Now, that is what I have in common with our two protagonists. We were all joking. And in all cases it should’ve been quite obvious.

For instance, in my case, the joke should’ve been obvious for the simple fact that I’m 5’8″ tall and I weigh, um, 128 pounds. My gastroenterologist calls me “scrawny.” Obviously, there’s no way in hell Arnold Schwarzenegger would be jealous of me. The only physical competition I could possibly win against him was how quickly mosquitoes could suck me dry.

Now, I think it should be quite obvious that the joke I played on that nurse, and Peter and Gavin (and others) have played on the general population, have profound similarities. They’re both absurd. I mean, yeah, every breath we take, we exhale a breath of poison.

But here is the difference. You see, the nurse didn’t laugh at my joke. She actually took it seriously. How, I’ll never know. And, rather than let her think that this ‘scrawny’ guy could actually compare himself to Arnold I quickly walked it back and told her, “Just kidding,” rather than letting her think that I was a blithering moron.

And that’s the difference. Gavin and Peter never walked it back. And now it’s too late.

Maybe I am new to this English vocabulary thing, but I have only recently noticed that the word “rorts” is appearing in articles on the internet. I believe I first noticed it on JoNova’s blog. Does this have an Australian origin? Since I am somewhat rowdy myself, does that mean that I can be called, rorty, even though I am an honest person?

Schmidt and Gleick don’t live in the same world that we do. Theirs is an imaginary world created by climate models. They stubbornly refuse to look at any observations that show their imaginary world diverging from reality.

Thanks for providing a definition of “rorts.” I had wondered if it was a typo or a simply a word I’d never previously encountered and went so far as to look it up (with no success). It did not occur to me that it might be a derivative of rorty.

Does gabbin’ Gavin report the income from his blogging on the public dime, or does he emulate his mentor, activist/bureaucrat Jim “Boiling Seas” Hansen, who tried to hide his ill-gotten, anti-scientific snake oil gains?

The Hertog Global Strategy Initiative (HGSI) seeks talented undergraduates, graduate students, and mid-career professionals for its 2013 seminar on the History of Climate Change and the Future of Global Governance.

HGSI is a research program that explores how the world community has responded to planetary threats to derive lessons that will help us take on the challenges of the present and the future. Each summer, a select group of participants comes to Columbia University for three months to work with leading scholars and policymakers. This year’s initiative hopes to train a new generation of researchers and leaders who understand both the development of climate science and the changing nature of world politics.

The 2013 seminar will be taught by Matthew Connelly, Professor of History at Columbia University, and Jim Fleming, Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at Colby College. They will be assisted in the classroom by Deborah Coen, Paul Edwards, Mike Hulme, Anthony Janetos, Bill McKibben, Geoffrey Parker, Gavin Schmidt, John Topping, and many other leaders in the field.

Participants pursue original research both independently and in teams. Students will receive eight credit points for the seminar, the equivalent of two semester-long courses at Columbia.

I read somewhere, once, that Buddhist types who were really devout would have an acolyte moving ahead of them sweeping the path so that no unseen insects might get killed by the passage of the devout one. It seems senseless and trivial but consistent with the faith of not causing harm to any living creature.

The Gleiks of this world are much the same. Their hysterical gestures in support of their faith may well be internally consistent but have zero effect in the real world. Let us hope that their cloying attachment to the somewhat naive folks in power soon wanes and thus allow society to continue its great march into the future.

The worst reputation must go to the chemical implicated in the most disasters…. now where is the link to the web site documenting all the evil consequences of rising CO2? I know it was posted at WUWT a while ago, but I didn’t save it to my favourites. I will now if someone will put it up again!

pgosselin says:
May 9, 2013 at 9:09 amWhat ever doesn’t agree with Holy Climate Scripture is false no matter what data or findings get presented. Happer and Schmitt to Gleick are like Galileo to the Catholic Church.
Correct. Only the climate scripture is called “climate science” or short even “science” to confuse the audience. So if you contradict it, you are “anti-science” (I have seen “anti-climate” too)

SCheesman says:
May 9, 2013 at 10:48 am The worst reputation must go to the chemical implicated in the most disasters…. now where is the link to the web site documenting all the evil consequences of rising CO2? I know it was posted at WUWT a while ago, but I didn’t save it to my favourites. I will now if someone will put it up again!

John Greenfraud says:
May 9, 2013 at 9:23 am
“With the climate rackets drying up, Gleick will do anything to get some press. However, in his defense, job opportunities may be limited for a liar and a thief in the real world.”

After I read or hear about some of the tweets people send whether it is sports, entertainment, media, government, or science, and the instantaneous idiots they make of themselves, I know why I will never have a tweeter account. After a comment makes the internet, it never goes away and never can be successfully denied.

Gleick! The scan! ROTFLMAO!
And he calls this “notes”? He invites any followers to “please continue”? Will we now get a bunch of comments from warmists who simply exclaim “False!” ??? Can’t wait! Cracking myself up.

It’s rather amusing that sulfuric acid is on Gavin’s list of horrors, since it is actually one of the main props of any industrial society. Practically anything you can think of is ultimately manufactured from or with three basic ingredients: sulfuric acid, crude oil and natrium chloride (ordinary salt).

“P.S. Notice all the ad hom stuff and not a whit of evidence to back up their claims.”

First thing that struck me too – and the scans confirmed it. What total idiots they do make of themselves!

As for calling the eminent scientists ‘idiots’ – that is projection in its purest form. The scientists will suffer no harm from it, unlike the name-caller. Surely even those who are persuaded by the faulty warmist arguments because they don’t have the knowledge to follow the arguments in detail will pause and think when they see such, er, idiocy?

The trouble with Twitter is that it’s how most of the young get their ‘information’. Their MTV-induced attention span is too tiny to permit of an actual argument. That’s why they take exams with multiple-choice questions (ie usually a 25% chance of guessing correctly). These people have the vote, that is our tragedy.

The difference between Rhetoric and Logic is that Logic seeks to prove the Truth while Rhetoric only seeks to persuade people to believe.
Science will eventually overcome faith, although the process may be as slow as erosion.
In the end, Gravity always wins.

Which chemicals have the worst reputation? Here’s one suggestion on how to measure that. Which chemicals currently scare people, so that they want protection from them, and they’ll pay nearly any price to get it. Some way to measure that is political speeches and hearings (which are always mostly about protection and outrage, not about education), newspaper articles of warning, dedicated websites, protests of the XL pipeline, and all that doom and gloom jazz. Heck, there could be poems and songs about it by now, for all I know.

You’re going to seriously suggest that Agent Orange gets that kind of attention in this day and age?

Poor, poor Peter Gleick, document forger, liar and identity thief. Hey Gleick, I told you before and I’ll tell you again. We will defeat your political agenda to brainwash children by getting into the schools and teaching the kids real science. You know, the science of matter and energy not political agendas and your whacked out religious belief in global warming.

Gav n’ Pete….another comedy duo in the mould of Cookie and Lew.
They’re meant to be Scientists correct?
Well don’t Scientists measure things and collect useful data?
Seeing as money is how everything is measured nowadays they simply need to look at the trillions of dollars that have been squandered on CO2, I’m thinking… control/mitigation/sequestration/research/renewable energy subsidies/PR/flights to conferences etc etc etc, then compare that to the amount of money spent on the other substances.
But that would give an answer they don’t like…and we all know that happens then, don’t we!

It appears hysteria is all they have left. What’s the old saying? When the facts are on your side argue the facts. When the law (laws of nature) are on your side argue the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table.

If Gleick really believed all that was false, false, false – wouldn’t it be better for him to just dig out the evidence? Why do these believers have to resort to manipulating the data, to hiding their methods, to forging documents, to lying and to shouting at everyone who doesn’t agree? All they have to do is reveal their EVIDENCE so we can all have a look at it, and show – in return – if it can be falsified. Wouldn’t we all get a better night’s sleep?

…Except for the watermelons wanting to rule the world, the politicians who are in league with them and think humankind should be oppressed, and the shonky scientists playing along for Big Bucks. But the believers – the true believers – would feel better for knowing, right?

I was going to ask Peter which group he was in, but going by past exploits, I think we all know.

These juveniles would be entertaining except THEY ARE EATING OUR TAX DOLLARS at a high rate. How I wish the political climate were such that these people could be stripped of their credentials and blocked from the public trough forever…

BTW, about the dreadful parabens:
“Some parabens are found naturally in plant sources. For example, methylparaben is found in blueberries,[6][7][8] where it acts as an antimicrobial agent.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabens

You can dance on them all you want but I find the whole sickening because they wasted their education and potential for legitimate science research.They have no excuse for their stupid easy to spot garbage they tried to fool us with: The “Hockey Stick” paper.

I still find sycophants who are willing to completely embarass themselves following someone who through computerized statistical bogosity bring up the “hockey Stick” paradigm and not realize that many other research institutions find plenty of evidence on the existence of the MWP and LIA climate periods.It is not even hard to find them and I personally knew they existed way back in the 1970’s because the evidence for those climatic events were well known.Thus anyone still wanting to defend the H.S. impossiblility indicates to me that I am near a gutter level moron

They chose political/environmental propaganda over the Scientific Method and we ALL lose for it and that is why they deserve their coming punishment by being fired or get so nakedly exposed as a dirtbag wanna be researcher with a briefcase full of bullshit.

There is still a great reluctance not to identify the particular political thread in common that drives Glieck, Schmidt and Mann. They are all part of an uber left-wing elite which drives AGW policy thought.

Instead of personalizing their behavior or focusing on science irrationality alone it would be better if the political cultures and motives were acknowledged directly instead of through inference. Leading skeptics seem to maintain this blind-spot for reasons I can only speculate upon.

In 2010, the WSJ refused to publish his letter. The one he organized. Signed by 255 scientists concerned about climate change. With Gleick as the leader signer. He organized it. It was his potential moment in the sun with national attention. They refused to give him a moment in the sun, and sent him back to the leftie-scientist ghetto.

Instead they published in 2012, the letter signed by 16 skeptics, including Harrison Schmidt, the who was on the board of Heartland.

Gleick complained vociferiously on twitter, and in multiple blog posts ever since. Linking the two incidents. The WSJ snubbed him personally. But they published Schmidt! (Now not once, but twice!). He believes they are linked. Including tweets (as recently as yesterday), and long boring blog posts about his 3 year old letter not being published in the WSJ (he was still complaining as recently as 1 month ago).

And what happened when the WSJ published the Schmidt/16 letter? Gleick immediately started trying to get into Heartland’s files using subterfuge. Perhaps that is a sign of how angry he was.

And which Heartland board member did Gleick impersonate? Heartland have never said, but some of us believe we have figured it out…

And when the forged letter was bundled with the purloined package of documents – the forged letter that many believe Glieck wrote – what did it say? It said Gleick was important…. that he was the kind of pro-science blogger who deserved a moment in the sun as a prominent climate blogger… . (and wasn’t getting it due to evil deniers).

Maybe I am new to this English vocabulary thing, but I have only recently noticed that the word “rorts” is appearing in articles on the internet. I believe I first noticed it on JoNova’s blog. Does this have an Australian origin? Since I am somewhat rowdy myself, does that mean that I can be called, rorty, even though I am an honest person?
******************************************************************************************************
I don’t know where celebration or party comes from. A rort is Australian slang for a scam, fraud etc

Carbon dioxide makes for an easy scapegoat. Climatists have simply determined it to be guilty until proven innocent. But, there is one chemical compound that slips completely under the radar which is actually deadly – DHMO. People have tried without success to have it banned.

This line is very tricky: “Will climate change influence tornado occurrence?”
My answer is no, but the tornado occurencies may well lead to a changed climate.
Climate is anyway the average of weather, so to have an other climate, you need first to have an other weather. It is not the climate that gives the weather but just the opposite.

I read this article, then almost immediately after reading it, received this junk mail from barackobama.com (I am unaware of how I got on their list) with a subject line of “Tin foil hat alert”. Seems relevant:

“Friend —

Break out the tin foil hats, folks.

House Speaker John Boehner and the chairman of the House Science Committee are both unsure whether the science behind climate change — the stuff that shows pretty clearly that carbon pollution produced by humans is damaging our environment — is real.

Instead, they’re on the record saying things like this:

“The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.” – John Boehner, April 2009

As long as our members of Congress continue to develop their own theories behind climate change, we will fall further and further behind in our ability to make actual progress on this issue.

Make them do better. Add your name to join OFA’s team that will hold climate deniers in Congress accountable:

Thanks greatly, Anthony, for doing the legwork to let honest people know what the clowns are up to at this moment. It is important work. But I do not envy the boredom that you must endure while you are revealing the clowns.

Looks to me that the big gavininny and criminal gleickiepoo are making great strides towards bringing back the town stocks for crimes deserving public humiliation.

For their benefit, we’ll have to make sure that no plants or animals are harmed in the construction of the stocks. Perhaps use dolomitic limestone instead of wood? If they (g&g) object to how ordinary and plain dolomite can be (often coarse grainy gray), we’ll consider upping the town stocks genteel factor by using polished wood replaced chalcedony. When all else fails we’ll just use oil paints on plain old wood stocks; lead free of course. Still, I rather fancy the idea that carbonate compounds are helping to restrain them and plain gray suits them..

Visitors will be invited to inscribe one word notes on glieckens public humiliation attire (one white lab coat and one pair white boxer shorts sans opening). Free over ripe and unripe bug infested fruits will be available for visitors who would like to play ‘guess my tipping point’ with gavininny and glieckfraud.

Gleick should have been fired long ago for incompetence. Instead, he has been rewarded, despite engaging in obviously illegal acts in his fraudulent acquisition of documents from the Heartland Institute. If an AGW skeptic had engaged in similar criminal activity, he would have been vilified by the mainstream media and investigated by law enforcement.

The Warmist crowd gave up any claim to ethics, truth or morality long ago. The damage their fraudulent science has done to mankind, especially the poor and energy impoverished, is incalculable.